The Sheep Dog Rag - 10th ed. Feb.2010

THE SHEEP DOG RAG
INSPIRED BY DAVE GROSSMAN
10th EDITION FEB.2010

Slim@outdrs.net

This is a free publication by slim enterprises. Read it and leave it where you found it for others to read, take it home and read it then offer it to others. You can also copy and print it and give it to others. Copy and e-mail to others the idea being that we need to reach as many people as possible. Information this contains is found on the internet and occasionally through other sources. We try to verify everything contained in this publication as to accuracy and truth. However we are not infallible. When we have not been able to find the same info from several different sourses at the very least, we will say so. I am the editor and I include my own opinions occasionally. I will also include opinions from many other sources. All this is done using a home computer and dialup. I am plugged into e-mail friends, many that I have never met, from all over. I comment on news stories at well over 100 sites regularly. I love irritating the anti-gun nuts with the truth. Many of them must be democrats because they can’t stand the truth. I pull few punches but I pride myself in changing minds here and there. My resources are limited so my publishing is limited. It costs money for ink, toner and paper. I have an inkjet that I have had for some time but have had to buy a laserjet for black and white. Much cheaper and a bit faster. email me if you can. Love from an sheepdog. 1.
I have been working very hard now for several months to inform as many people as I can about what is going on in our Government. I see a very definite trend like what went on in Germany during the years before the Nazi party and Adolph Hitler came into power. I see what is happening in my country right now and it is exactly the same thing. My country is just a little bit different in that the people seem to be much better armed than the people of Germany were. However the let the other guy do it attitude is right here and right now. The people are eating well. The people have jobs and homes and go to church or not and shop and don’t seem to be concerned about anything. Where is the outcry?
1. Look at things! 1. We have a president who is not a citizen of the united states. He is not qualified to be president. He got there because the people have been brainwashed for many years and so have elected people to our government that ARE NOT good Americans. They do not honor their oath of office. They are traitors to their country. They aid and abet a criminal to take over our country and destroy it and our freedoms. They have twisted things. They have given us freedom FROM religion. Our constitution guarantees us freedom OF religion. We set there and allowed them to do so.
2. We have allowed the nobamma types to brainwash our kids in the Public school system, (actually the FEDERAL SCHOOL SYSTEM). It is true! They do not teach many of the basic things that the kids need to know such as: The Constitution and what it truly says, patriotism and its whys and wherefores. We are distracted in many things by the system itself so that we do not know what is really going on. I mean they spend more time teaching lies than they do in really educating our kids. They are steeped in politically correct nonsense. And it gets worse in every generation because the last generation does not see or realize the little changes. They teach immorality to our kids. They are not allowed to teach the moral codes and the ethical codes that are written in the Bible under the guise of protecting a very small minority from being offended. Offended by ethics and morality? God help us. We are ripe for one situation that earmarked the Nazi movement and the Communist movement. Our children are being led to accept that it is okay to tell on their parents or relatives if they hear them speak words deemed unacceptable by the Government. My son came out of grammar school hating his country. How many of you between 50 and 55 remember being taught to hate their country. Think about it.
3. Your president has two schools going that are training young people to be a national police force. He says that yes, WE NEED A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE AS WELL ARMED, TRAINED AND EQUIPPED AS OUR MILITARY! Why? Who will these national policemen be loyal to? What color will their shirts be. Most of you who are reading this have not been taught history. This is just exactly what happened under Hitler. Look it up and read it if you dare. The threat is real! I know because WW2 began for the US when I was about 8 years old. I lived the history of that war. I learned and knew what happened in Germany during the years before the war began. The history was part of the history lessons all through my school years. I have seen many documentaries since. In world history we learned about the rise and fall of Rome. We learned about the democracies of that era. We learned why. We started learning about Communism.
4. Most people not only do not vote. If they do vote, they only vote on name recognition, whether the candidate is Democrat or Republican or some other idiotic reason. They do not understand or seem unable to care what or who they are voting for and that is the end of concern. 5. Most do not know how the government works. They do not know about checks and balances. They do not know that the president actually has less power than congress does. So now we have, for instance, a situation where president Bush is blamed for what he did not do. The president does not make law. The president cannot make law. He can only disapprove or approve law. If he disapproves congress can and will over-ride that disapproval. In other words if congress has enough votes to over-ride a veto it is not the presidents fault. After the congress shoves a bill down a presidents throat or up -well- the president cannot be blamed if it turns out to be what the people do not want. The first Bush said “there will not be any new Taxes”. The congress shoved that statement back down his throat. So the people got mad and gave us Clinton. Stupid! However, the masses were brainwashed by the lying traitorous media into believing that it was Bushes fault somehow. I guess he could have machine gunned congress maybe. But then the masses would have called foul anyway….. There was a bit of backlash against what was conceived as something wrong about the sex offenders administration and such so another Bush was planted and trimmed. Now for several years the democrats had been running around in circles screaming and emoting about the weapons of mass destruction and the brutality of the despot in Iraq. Indeed they were there and indeed they had used them. That is a hystorical fact. So congress approved Bushes war. Remember? Or did you even know? The president of the US cannot declare war without the approval of congress??????? The same congress that was screaming and emoting, sobbing and in hysterics, about the huge danger this despot provided, APPROVED “Bushes” war. Now this begs the question, since the people in congress who named it “Bushes” war are still in the majority, and Bush was wrong to get us into that war, HOW COME WE ARE STILL THERE??? So how come it is Bushes fault? Who are the liars here. If our people in congress are not traitors to their country, how come our government is suddenly full of crazy people, commies and radicals in general. All of those appointed by nobamma are just that. The guy appointed to exact policy in our education system is a sex offender. He also advocates educating, from kindergarten on, in the wonders of homosexuality. There are many others that will be listed in this rag who are insane, borderline insane, and all are avowed communists. What have you idiots who voted for nobamma done? Will we just wait until people with full auto guns and military garb come to our door, point those guns at us and tell us to get out of the way because they are going
2
to search our property for seditious materials such as this rag, and our guns? Will we wake up then? Or will we just get on our knees and beg for a taste of what is between their legs before they kill us or take us off to the prison to be interrogated because you have your radio set on a disapproved station. Don’t laugh, it has already happened in Germany, Russia, Poland, China, Italy, France, South America, Cuba, Africa, the south sea Islands and other places like the Islamic states. In fact nearly everywhere except the US.
I am becoming very discouraged because what I see is truth and the truth is that we are on the brink of disaster such as we have never known and nobody seems to be much disturbed. It is already almost too late to prevent a civil war. It is already almost to late to take our government back. You see, According to our constitution we are supposed to be a government OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE. Which in a nutshell means that every elected official in the US is the employee of the people. They are not our leaders! They are not our employers! They are our employees elected, actually hired by the people, to do the will of the people. They have not done this for a very long time. They have lied to get their jobs, lied to keep their jobs and lied just because it is fun. They have stolen from their bosses big time. How? They take the pay we give them and put it in their pockets. Then they accept money from those who have special interests that are not the will of the people and vote to favor those special interests. They take the money in campaign funds. Then when they are elected, they pay that money back out of our pockets by voting in favor of what the special interests want. That is theft in every nuance of the word. They do not do our will. How? They take money from special interests and vote in their favor. For instance: 80 something percent of the people are against abortion on demand. Then why do we have abortion on demand? Because the pro-abortion crowd spends twice as much money, mostly to democrats, to vote for abortion on demand. Most of the people are pro-gun. We still have most of our gun rights. Why? Because the gun lobby spends twice as much, mostly to the republicans. In other words, that extra money is more important to our employees than their integrity and their loyalty to the people who hired them, their bosses. So our hired hands lie to us, steal from us, do not do what we want them to do and do that which is not in our best interest. How long would you keep your job if you did this? How long would you stay out of jail? Not only that but our hired hands vote in their own wage scale, their own retirement benefits and their own health benefits. Their Pay scale is already so high that they do not need the other benefits. And their benefits are guaranteed so that no matter what, they will get those benefits. How is your retirement doing? What about SSI and Medicare? What is it our employees force upon us?
Now I will ask some questions. About a few things. Lets start with welfare. What is welfare? It is the act of people giving to those less fortunate what they need to live. Charity if you will. This is given out of love and concern for our fellow man. Nobody is entitled to what they get from those who care. We GIVE because another person is unable, due to infirmity and such and does not family able to furnish these needs. We give because someone is temporarily unemployed and has not acquired the resources to feed themselves. We even give to those who WILL NOT WORK for a time. This, if the people do it, is not very costly to the people and those who will not work are soon cut off. But even then we feed their dependents because they are not to be faulted. Still it costs us little to do this. There are private agencies such as the red cross, and various religious groups. It is financed by donations and volunteer workers. So far as I can see, it is and was effective. Also, the people doing this were right there and they cut off the person who will not work. Some do this by requiring those able to do so to help with a little sweat of their own. ------why should it remain with the people and not be a function of government? Name a project the government takes on that is not royally screwed up. Government cannot even buy toilet seats at a reasonable price. Government cannot even set their own pay scale without going overboard. Government cannot even do the jobs they are constitutionally supposed to do. Government is like Reagan said “A gut with an insatiable appetite on one end and no conscience on the other”
So enter government welfare. First it is unconstitutional. It is not one of the mandates in the constitution nor one of the powers granted by the states. Now we have an entity that is illegally extorting money from the people and forcing the people to pay for something whether they wish to or not. There goes a large portion of the GNP. A system is set up that costs probably ten times what people were donating before. The rolls grow and grow because the vast majority on those rolls are those who do not wish to work and think they are entitled to our money because the Government is paying for it. S--t! The government does not have any money. The government is was and ever shall be broke. The only money it has or can ever have is the money it extracts from the peoples (the bosses) pockets. So welfare is actually catering to the rabble. This is exactly what caused the fall of Rome and the people of Rome have never been truly free since.
So now we have for employees a bunch of people who think government welfare is great, government run banking system is great, government run industry is great, government run health care is great, government run schools are great, big brother is a great idea, our constitution is just another scrap of paper not fit to wipe the messias rear, civil rights are worthless and a bother, and think they are the employers. JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I am doing everything I can do about it. When they come for my guns or try to arrest me for exercising my free speech rights I will die. What else can anyone do? Get educated, take your head out of the sand. Tell others what is going on. Pass it on. Scream, hollar, and yell! Call up your employees and tell them how you feel about it and tell them you will not be voting for them next time and why. Kay Bailey Hutchison is deserting us because she wants to run for her own private kingdom of governor when she is needed to be right where she was hired to be doing what is best for her employer, not what she thinks is best but what her employer thinks is best. Ralph Hall is a good
3
man but has lost sight of and lacks the fire to fight this fight. Cornyn just like miss K is only a career politician. All such are but liars and thieves. It may be possible to, if it goes statewide at least and nationwide at best to get the attention of these people and those like them that their time may very well be very short before they are fired. We can do this by informing your employees of what you are about to do.
What are you about to do? You are about to vote for anyone who will run against them. It does not matter as to party or even platform. Whether they are better or worse or of no difference. We will vote for them. A newbee running against an incumbent has little chance of winning. That is not necessary anyway. A very good showing will shake up the incumbent a bit and make him think. If the newbee wins by some chance, it matters not if he is worse or just as bad. We ain’t lost nuttin. However we have gained something. We have shown those who remain that they are on thin ice so to speak. In two years there is another election. We will have many more newbees because they think they might have a chance. The only change is that if they are running against a known loyal good guy, do not vote for them. Besides in this second election of a series we will have a better choice of newbees and more of them. So hittum again. In another 2 years there will be another election. Those who have hung in there so far will be messing their drawers. Have absolutely no mercy. Remember, they are career politicians and therefore liars and thieves so you cannot believe any apparent change of heart. Newbees who are not career politicians should be favored over any other candidate. When this election is over we should have a much more pliable group of employees. We can then start some reform. We start by demanding that a special commission be appointed to examine all laws in the light of the constitution in context of language of the time in which it was written, the conditions of the time in which it was written and all letters, papers, speeches and sayings of the anyone having anything to do with the writing of this document. If the law is not found to be constitutional, it will be voided no matter what the hardship. I believe from my own studies that this will get rid of the IRS, welfare, federal gun laws, and many entities that have invaded our government that are not authorized. Also, every one of our employees will be required to take a course of study under the same commission and pass the test in order to remain in office or gain office. The supreme court will be under the same constraints as will every federal judge. State and local judges are under the state governments and are not under fed. Jurisdiction. They are not allowed to hear a Fed. Case. Anyone who introduces any kind of law that is not constitutional shall be fired immediately and replaced by ballot of the people.
Since we will still be deeply in debt and will still need to have some moneys coming in for operations, we will need a new tax system immediately if not sooner. I recommend one of two systems. The percentage system where everyone pays a percentage of their income period. No exceptions and no exemptions. Or the fair tax. This tax taxes only what you spend on anything except the food you buy and take home and prepare yourself. If it is pre-cooked it is taxed. However canned foods would be exempt just as it is now. If you can afford pre-cooked food whether at a deli or restaurant you can afford a tax on it.
Either tax would be much cheaper to manage than the huge agency of the IRS that requires offices and several employees in nearly every town in the US plus cars for the agents to drive and such. Then there are the centers where tax returns are processed and checks are cut to repay deductions and such. It would not require the lawyers and such either. The stores and other agencies who collect the taxes would be subject to audit however to keep them honest. I believe if either tax is instituted the savings alone will pay off the national debt in a few years. Getting rid of all the government agencies that are not necessary or constitutional will also be a huge savings. There are many taxes that are not constitutional. They will be scrapped. The Federal tax is very limited. We need a tax to support our military pay our employees and provide offices for our employees and the subcontractors necessary for the much smaller beaurocracy that will be needed.
The next thing we need to get rid of is the present reliance on bankers. The economy will take care of itself. The people do not need the federal government to tell them how to do business. They do not need the federal government to bail them out. If they goof and go under that is their problem. No matter how big they are, the economy will hiccup and go on. No group or business or entity needs subsidizing.
Back in the 60’s it was decided that the dairy farmers needed to be subsidized. To keep the price up in the stores, the government bought the excess milk, processed it and gave it away to those on welfare (most of whom would not work). This makes a lot of sense. Use the taxpayers money to buy milk, process it into cheese or canned milk or powdered milk or just give it to those deemed in need so that the taxpayer had the privilege of paying more for it in the store. This caused a bunch of people to buy cows and go into the dairy business. Also instead of leaning down their dairy the dairy farmer bought more cows and made more milk because the price they would get for it was guaranteed with the taxpayers money (including the dairy farmers). The government wound up with so much dairy product that they started giving it away to anyone who wanted it through the churches. I will say this, the cheese was much better than you could buy in the store. The butter was excellent as was the rest of the “commodities”. That is Government for you. Stupidity on special flashy chromed wheels with white sidewalls. Whooooee! About that time it was deemed that the farmers were growing too much wheat. The Government had stockpiles of it they had bought from the farmer to keep the prices up that was in danger of spoiling and they could no longer give it to anyone because suddenly Russia and other soviet countries suddenly had a few bumper crops. So they decided to pay the farmer not to farm. In other words they would pay the farmer with our tax money the same he would probably made if he had grown it himself. People went around and bought up or leased land and told the government they planned to grow wheat. The
4
government paid them not to do so. They were not farmers and did not wish to farm. They worked at J&J, TI and many other plants around. Just drive around the countryside. Those nice 30-40 year old three bedroom bricks were probably bought and given to people so the taxpayer could pay more for bread and flour and such. That is what our employees in big government do. They proclaimed a ban on alcoholic beverages called prohibition. This caused more deaths and grief and cost the taxpayer more than alcoholic beverages could possibly ever cause. It gave us a huge black market. It gave us the mafia and it sent a bunch of people to jail that did not belong there. All this was just a huge cost to the tax-payer. Not only that, people drank more per capita during prohibition than ever before or since. They didn’t learn and the American people learned nothing from this. They declared the same war on drugs. DO NOT GET ME WRONG I am very much against the abuse of drugs.
I remember hearing the saying when very young and it goes like this, “one cannot legislate morality.” I believed that then and I believe it now because it makes sense. Think about it. Has anti -prostitution laws made any dent in the practice? Did prohibition have any effect on drinking? Has prohibiting guns kept anyone from having one? Lets get real here. Has the war on drugs stopped those; who want to, from using those drugs? What has banning drugs and making war on drugs given us? You got it. An exercise in futility. It has raised the price of those drugs to the point that the hooked user must rob and steal more to buy the same. Thus raising the crime rate. It has produced a very profitable black market that is peopled by unethical people whose bottom line is by hook or crook and anything goes. A group of people it is impossible to regulate. It gives drug dealers incentive to protect their turf and so random and drive by shootings and innocents caught in the crossfire. It has filled up our courts jails and prisons with people who would not otherwise be there. The taxpayer has to pay for the building and upkeep on these places. The taxpayer has to feed these people. The taxpayer has to pay for their health care clothing and the utilities involved and all the employees. Legalizing them will do many good things such as, relieving the burden in our correctional facilities, reduce the cost because legitimate sources do not have the incentive to charge so much, improve the purity of the product and standardize the strength of the product. And in so doing improve the health of the addict so health care is not so much of a problem. Reduce crime because it would put the dealer and maker out of business. Reduce the number of new users because they would not have the pressure to use by those who would profit. Reduce the thrill factor in trying it out. So we would have fewer users. However it would Not stop the use or new users. People are stupid and you cannot legislate brains either. Only cold hard facts without emotional crap will help some of the users.
So lets get away from the wisdom of having the government do what we could do for ourselves. We have talked about the Government buying the milk dairy farmers produce with your money so that you can pay more for the milk out of the grocery store. We have talked about the government spending your money so the farmer can make money not farming so you can spend more money in the grocery store for those things they are paying the farmer not to produce. We have talked about the government forcing you to pay taxes so that the government can give that tax money to someone who has no right to it. These people who received my money lived better than I could afford to live. At one time I had two boys and two girls sleeping in one 12 X10 bedroom. Not so with the people my government was giving my money to. Two kids to a bedroom please, but not a male and a female. You got a boy and a girl you must live in a 3 bedroom place or they would not give you my money. No one allowed to sleep in the living room. Now these, mostly women, had the 5 kids that the law would allow and one more for a spare in case something happened to one of them. That translates to at the very least a 4 bedroom house. If you had 3 boys and 3 girls that worked out fine. But if you had 5 boys and one girl that translates into 5 bedrooms. But I, the taxpayer raised 4 in a three bedroom house when I finally was able to afford a mansion like that. Then there was the grandkids before I had all the originals out of the house. For many years I had as many as 8 kids staying here in various mixes. At times I had a grand daughter, one time for over 3 years, who had nightmares and I would wake up to find her standing by my bed. I would simply move over and she would snuggle up to me and we would go back to sleep. Some of the PC people (yes we had them then) almost had kittens when they found out about it. I attempted to fulfill the needs of all of my kids. I loved them and if they needed someone to hold them close when they were afraid, I would never turn them away. That is not what love is about. Any way, these women of welfare had all those kids because it meant more money for them. They did not pay for the birth of those kids. The taxpayer did whether he wanted to or not. They did not pay for their clothes. The taxpayer did. They did not pay for the food all these kids ate. The taxpayer did. They did not pay for school supplies. The taxpayer did and you know what? Even when the Taxpayer furnished the money these women seldom turned it into school supplies. But not to worry. Just have everyone bring in more than necessary and put it all into a common closet and everybody share and lo the problem is solved and the kids that did not bring their share were not embarrassed because they were entitled to that which they did not pay for. So the government taught that it paid to not work and it was okay. These same people, even since welfare reform, are still doing the same thing. They have a kid by some stranger and apply for aid to dependant children. The state says no-no. We will furnish you a lawyer and sue this guy for not paying child support. Then we will put him in jail for not paying it. All the government lawyers know is that the woman claims this man is the father but in reality many times she does not know who the father is. The father sometimes could be also the brother or an uncle or whatever. However the mother has to name someone. So in the meantime the mother collects our tax money until the father pays up. I know one of them that owes so much back support plus interest that if he was able to get a $20 an hour job with overtime every week, he would not be able to pay it back in his working lifetime. He has, it is claimed, 4 kids. The best he can do is close to minimum wage about 6 months out of a year. They take a percentage 5
of that out of his check before he sees it and also take his income tax return. He cannot support himself on that wage. It won’t even buy him groceries let alone clothes and shelter. You say that he should not have fathered those children. You are right. However the woman should have taken precautions also. They are equally at fault. However many of them deliberately get pregnant for the same reason they had a spare on the old system. So what is the difference? The taxpayer is the one to suffer while the government steals our money for the person who is really at fault to start with. The fact is, if you will not work for it you are NOT entitled to it according to the Bible, The constitution and nature. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS AGAINST THE LAW! ALL LAWS!
Now the government, our employees, is again breaking the supreme law of the land by federalizing health care. We have the best health care in the world in this country. No it still is not perfect and probably will never be simply because of the fact that human beings are not perfect by any means. Do you really think that an entity that screws up everything it touches is the best qualifier for running health care? Really?? Do you think that an entity that is a proven outlaw, it consists of hirelings that lie to, steal from, and refuse to do what the boss says to do, so we really want it to run our businesses, our health care system, our banks, our industry and our very lives????? Really???? Have you completed your lobotomy? Sounds like it.
Anyway I guess I have furnished a long enough rant for now. But I really needed to get these trivial concerns off my chest and get the rest of the rag together. Please receive the love of a truly insane editor who loves his country, is that not insanity, and just wants to blow off his mouth with nonsense because he thinks it is funny. NOT!! Happy new year.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself ............ Mark Twain
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ........... George Bernard Shaw
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
HOW DID JEFFERSON KNOW???
Especially read the last quote from 1802.
It has been said the greatest volume of sheer brainpower in one place occurred when Jefferson dined alone...
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe . Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will
deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered..'
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The Oama files
The Movement
On July 2nd, 2008, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs and hit themes of national service, foreign policy, and national security. In that vein, Obama proposed a rather extraordinary idea -- that the US should spend as much money on a civilian national security force as it does on the military.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
6
Well, I have a flash for you, since 1993, he's been organizing the cadre of his personal, civilian national security force -- his "shadow army" -- at fifteen fully-staffed and populated indoctrination centers.
Public Allies, modeled after Alinsky's "people’s organizations," is operating under the watchful eye of Michelle Obama and it has a ton of money -- more than $75 million per year -- and an impressive list of donors. Naturally, it also receives grants from federal, state and municipal sources. Its mission has been, and is, to produce "community organizers" -- baby Obamas -- and its process is replicable and repeatable -- continually producing more apparatchiks in "the community," where these people are perceived of as leaders. They answer to only one person -- Obama.
During the campaign, Obama also ran, at the state level, a "national program for social change," called "Camp Obama" -- here is their sign-up page -- ( this was sent to me on a disk. I cannot so far find it on the internet to get it printed here. However I have been told that it is truth by a very reliable source.) you too can be a "Deputy Field Organizer."
The Obama Campaign's website promised that "you'll get the kind of experience that Barack got as a com-munity organizer on the South Side of Chicago," and "Camp Obama is your chance to step up and become a leader in 'this movement'."
These community organizers have constituencies that can be mobilized, at the touch of a button, into political actions -- mobs in the streets -- to influence public opinion and the political process -- real visual stuff that Obama's water-carriers in the media will broadcast 24/7.
In addition to these shock troops, Obama has a reserve of 13 million-plus in his personal database that he is actively expanding. This pool of Internet-savvy people can be used to promote or attack any issue. Obama can direct tens of thousands of emotional emails, phone calls and letters on any target.
Remember, in September, when Chicago radio station WGN-AM twice came under attack from the Obama Campaign for offering airtime to an author who was politically opposed to Obama. As the result of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters, the Tribune-owned station was flooded with phone calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960's radical William Ayers. The phone calls effectively shut the station down. This Svengali recently released this video, in which he calls for MORE "volunteers" to help him "change America" -- and he makes it sound like a noble cause. In the video, at the end, he even places "The Movement" before "our country" -- the United States of America."
Never before has such a massive, organized political action force -- independent from the federal government --existed. Obama sardonically calls it, "Organizing for America."
On January 23rd, 2009 -- three days after the inauguration -- a little-publicized Department of Defense Directive (Number 1404.10) authorizes the mission and funding of hundreds of thousand foot-soldiers to fill the ranks of "The Movement. established a "DOD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. I just wonder if members of "The Movement," whose primary allegiance is to Obama, will have special uniforms? If so, what color will their shirts be?
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
It is time again to publish “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by Dave Grossman” We have many new readers and have been asked as to why the Name of this Rag. So here Goes.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators. 7
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warrior hood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. 8
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. .......… Edward Langley, artist (1928-1995)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The List
I usually don't pass along these "add your name" lists that appear in my email, but this one is too important. This one has been circulating for months. Please, keep it going! To show your SUPPORT for Obama's health care reform, please go the end of the list and add your name to the rapidly growing list below and send it on to your entire e-mail list. Even if you don't want to "add your name" to the list, at least check the list out before deleting.... 9
1. Nancy Pelosi 2. 3. 4.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different... Two Different Versions! ................. Two Different Morals!
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant 's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' (This is nobamma’s former job) Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. (which is all that will be given here because the hopper is green---not black)
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Shakedown in Copenhagen by Patrick J. Buchanan 12/18/2009
If you would know what Copenhagen is all about, hearken to this nugget in The Washington Post's report from the Danish capital.
"Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenari -- who is representing all of Africa here -- unveiled his proposal Wednesday for a system in which rich countries would provide money to poor ones to help deal with the effects of climate change. ... "Zenawi said he would accept $30 billion in the short term, rising to $100 billion by 2020. ... This was seen as a key concession by developing countries, which had previously spurned that figure ... as too low." There was a time when a U.S. diplomat would have burst out laughing after listening to a Third World con artist like this. But not the Obamaites. They are already ponying up.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.
When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power. Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development. End game: enrichment and empowerment of global elites at the expense of Western peoples whose leaders have been bamboozled by con artists.
When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Rita came ashore in Texas in 2005, we were told this was due to global warming, and hurricane seasons would now get worse and worse until the world radically reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. President Bush ignored the hysteria. What happened? As Michael Fumento reports, the 2009 hurricane season ended quietly, with the fewest hurricanes since 1997, and not one hurricane made landfall in the United States. When the feds sought to list the polar bear as an endangered species, Gov. Sarah Palin protested this "politicized science" and sued, claiming the polar bear was a healthy species whose numbers had doubled in recent years.
Was she wrong? Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer? The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April: "During the winter freeze in
10.
Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade." One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade? This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England.
How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming? Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth's end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen. "We are ... worried ... at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development," said the scientists. "We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere. ... Humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
"We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."
Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West," “The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Greta Van Susteren revealed last night that Rush Limbaugh will be one of the judges of the 2010 Miss America Pageant. Pageant officials figured this was the only way to keep Barack Obama from winning that, too.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Welcome to the Democratic Party’s Civil War
Friday, December 18, 2009 By Michelle Malkin
Seems like only yesterday the Washington establishment had proclaimed the death of the GOP. Pundits churned out public autopsy reports faster than the L. A. County Medical Examiner. Liberals gloated over the supposedly irreparable fissures between right-wing populists and Beltway Republican elites. Conservatism, we were told, was suffering brain death and heart failure. My, how quickly things—ahem—change.
Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, the GOP leadership, Sarah Palin’s heartland supporters, conservative think - tank intellectuals, D. C. and Manhattan conservatives, Big Business and small - business conservatives, Joe the Plumber conservatives, and every stripe and flavor of conservative in between are all united against the Democrats’ proposed government takeover of health care. All.
It’s the left, not the right, that’s cracking up. It’s the party donkey, not the elephant, now existing in a rabies-crazed frenzy. Funny, though, how internecine rancor on the right always puts conservatism in its last, final, permanent death throes (again and again), but internecine warfare on the left is merely a matter of healthy, principled disagreement.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean went on the “YEARRGGH!”-path again—dressed in Tea Party-esque drag — and exhorted the majority to “Kill the Bill” and start over with a public option. White House senior adviser David Axelrod—echoing criticism of Dean more commonly heard on the right—promptly pronounced the Vermont liberal’s rantings “insane.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Dean as irrational. And this was just the left-wing Punch and Judy show preview.
“Progressive” blogger and Hollywood producer Jane Hamsher declared war on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s wife, Haddasah, to punish him for his opposition to Harry Reid’s massive Medicare expansion “buy-in” plan. Best known for disseminating an online image of Sen. Lieberman in blackface to support failed liberal challenger Ned Lamont in 2006, and for issuing a death threat to conservative author Kate O’Beirne (“the b*tch is dead meat”), Hamsher demanded that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation fire Mrs. Lieberman from her role as a “global ambassador.”
“Progressive” documentarian Michael Moore one - upped Hamsher’s attack by threatening to boycott the entire state of Connecticut until it started a recall of Lieberman: “People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2 day or we’ll boycott your state,” Moore wrote on his Twitter account. Recalls, alas, are unconstitutional in Connecticut. Not that “progressives” would ever let any state or federal constitution get in the way of a bloody ideological vendetta.
Obama’s BFF and most frequent visitor, SEIU president Andy Stern, threw the president’s own words back at him in a cri de couer to Big Labor’s brothers and sisters: “President Obama must remember his own 11.
words from the campaign. His call of ‘Yes We Can’ was not just to us, not just to the millions of people who voted for him, but to himself.”
And moving toward the middle, moderate Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson is having his own Joe Wilson moment. On Thursday, he announced he couldn’t support his colleagues’ abortion language “compromise,” which he said failed to restrict government funding for abortion services.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are blaming Senate Democrats and the White House for the legislative melt-down. The Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief himself has come under fire. Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin carped that “the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines.” Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan accused the White House of selling out to the insurance industry.
It all feels very 1990s—the period between 1992 and 1994, specifically—when liberals smugly declared the premature death of the GOP only to be walloped by the midterm conservative backlash. The ruling majority got greedy, overreached and lost touch with average Americans. With the support of the public, Republicans united to slay Bill Clinton’s stimulus monstrosity and Hillary Clinton’s health care monstrosity. And the core differences between the parties could not have been clearer.
Then, as now, GOP strategists flirted with hapless “rebranding” programs in the wake of failed presidential campaigns. They bought into the public autopsy reports of their friends in New York City media green rooms and Georgetown parlors.
Then, as now, it took a grassroots conservative groundswell to remind the Beltway bubble boys and girls that adhering to the core principles of fiscal conservatism—lower taxes, less government, more freedom—was the key to party unification and would open the door once again to power.
And then, as now, conservative talk radio helped galvanize the revolt against a Democrat-spearheaded try at a government health care takeover. Local Seattle talk-show host Kirby Wilbur’s huge protest against Hillary Clinton’s visit in July 1994 was the turning point. National media outlets could not ignore the public booing of the first lady in the liberal Emerald City and the legislative doom it portended.
One major difference now is the vast proliferation of alternative media — through Face book, Twitter, blogs and Fox News — that has facilitated the spread of information about Democrats’ big-government designs and given rise to Tea Party activism.
The right’s ability to change the narrative is greater than ever. The Democratic crack-up reminds us that there are no faits accomplis in politics. Political coroners, take heed.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Remember when Ronald Reagan was president? We also had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash still with us.
Now we have Obama with no hope and no cash
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Conservative Leaders Dismiss Accusations of FCC Diversity Chief as ‘Worthless’
Friday, December 18, 2009 By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – Leading conservatives rebuked the Federal Communications Commission’s Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd - who claims to have been the victim of a “right-wing smear campaign” - saying the accusations made by him were “worthless” and “dishonest.”
“Mr. Lloyd’s comments are extremely disturbing and very revealing,” conservative author and political strategist Craig Shirley told CNSNews.com. “He doesn’t realize his opinions are utterly worthless and that, as a public servant, his job is to shut up and do as he is told by the American people.”
At a forum on Monday sponsored by the Media Access Project (MAP), Lloyd, who is also an associate counsel at the FCC, said that the “right-wing smear campaign” against him involved outlets ranging from blogs to church groups, and that he was not carrying out “a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or any other conservative talk show host.”
Lloyd also dismissed claims that he is a “supporter of Hugo Chavez” and said that “any careful reader of my writing will know that my focus, my long-standing interest, is not Limbaugh, Beck or Dobbs, it is not the right-wing haters.”
Shirley said that Lloyd has his role as a public servant backwards and should instead be listening to conservative citizens and their representatives, rather than attacking them. “It is not the role of the American people as represented by Limbaugh, [Sean] Hannity, [ Mark] Levin, [Laura] Ingraham, Gallagher, [Bill] Bennett and others to cower before their government,” said Shirley. “It is the job of Lloyd, Obama, and others whom we, the American people employ, to cower before us, the citizenry,” he said. “Lloyd is our servant, and he needs to learn to mind his mouth and his manners.”
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center (the parent company of CNSNews.com), called Lloyd’s accusations “dishonest” in a Tuesday press release. “Why are Obama’s leadership picks so incapable of telling the truth,” Bozell asked. “It is not necessary for conservatives to ‘distort’ or ‘smear’ Mark Lloyd. All we have to do is quote him. When we do, he has public meltdowns with hysterical and dishonest accusations.” At the forum, Lloyd had said, “Andy Schwartzman [president and CEO of MAP] was the first to warn me
12.
about an obscure, right-wing blog that was distorting my views about the First Amendment. The blog continued and spread different exaggerations and distortions.” “Those were picked up by radio and cable and then YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia,” said Lloyd, and “then by so-called news services and newspapers, the National Rifle Association and other association newsletters, e-mail blasts from church groups and then on to certain public officials.”
Lloyd claimed that this “right-wing smear campaign” had resulted in death threats against him and served as evidence of the dangers posed by “new media,” such as Facebook and YouTube. “The right-wing smear campaign has been, in a word, incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It Is the price we pay for freedom of speech, and I do support free speech,” Lloyd said. (BS says your SDR editor)
“Anyone who suggests that old media – whether newspapers or radio or cable – no longer matters, has not fully experienced the impact of old media,” he said. “Anyone who suggests that Facebook and YouTube are the answers to the problems of old media has not been confronted by a smear campaign using these social media tools.”
Morton Blackwell, founder of the Leadership Institute, compared Lloyd to disgraced former green jobs czar Van Jones, saying he was a “self-inflicted wound” on President Obama’s popularity. “Mark Lloyd, like Van Jones, is another of Obama’s self-inflicted wounds, draining away the president’s popularity,” Blackwell told CNSNews.com. “If you Google ‘Van Jones’ and ‘communism,’ you’ll see 282,000 hits. If you Google ‘Mark Lloyd’ and ‘Czar,’ you’ll get 546,000 hits. So I think that Mark Lloyd is obviously in big trouble and keeping him on is obviously generating more negativity about President Obama.”
Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative blog RedState.com, called Lloyd’s comments “amateurish,” adding that Lloyd appeared to have a chip on his shoulder. “Mr. Lloyd shows an amateurish sense of job reflected at all levels of the administration,” said Erickson. “As counsel to the FCC he is supposed to deliver unbiased legal advice, but he seems to have a chip on his shoulder and feels the need for spite. When the FCC wants everyone else to be neutral, perhaps they need to practice what they preach.”
In his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Lloyd wrote that in his “struggle” against commercial broadcasters, he took “inspiration and guidance” from the radical author Saul Alinksy, who dedicated his 1971 book Rules for Radicals to “the first radical known to man … Lucifer.”
Lloyd wrote: “We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters, which fiercely guarded its ability to determine legislation and regulation with an enormous amount of money and great public relations skills and resources. We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From these sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”
At the National Conference for Media Reform in June 2008, Lloyd described the ascendancy of socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela as a “democratic revolution.” Lloyd also said there was opposition to Chavez by “property owners” and the U.S. media, concluding that the socialist leader now takes “very seriously the media in this country.”
In recent years, Chavez has either nationalized or closed nearly all of Venezuela’s independent media outlets, focusing particular attention on media that were critical of his policies. “In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution -- a democratic revolution,” said Lloyd in June 2008. “To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela." “The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him,” said Lloyd. “But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.” At Monday’s forum, however, Lloyd said, “I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez.” At the May 2005 “Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice,” Lloyd said that applying affirmative action policies to the media was “difficult,” because there were some “truly good white people” who would have to “step down.” “This – there's nothing more difficult than this,” he said. “Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. “We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power,” said Lloyd. At Monday’s forum, Lloyd said: “I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power.”
-- -- -- - -- -- --
So what this story tells me is that Lloyd is not only a commie but he is also a liar and “the truth is not in him”. cute ed.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Little Zachary was doing very badly in math.
His parents had tried everything...tutors, mentors, flash cards, special learning centers. In short, everything they could think of to help his math. Finally, in a last ditch effort, they took Zachary down and enrolled him In the local Catholic school. After the first day, little Zachary came home with a very serious look on his face. He didn't even kiss his mother hello. Instead, he went straight to his room and started studying. Books and papers were spread out all over the room and little Zachary was hard at work. His mother was amazed. She called him down to dinner. To her
shock, the minute he was done, he marched back to his room without a word, and in no time, he was back hitting the books as hard as before.
This went on for some time, day after day, while the mother tried to understand what made all the difference.
13.
Finally, little Zachary brought home his report Card.. He quietly laid it on the table, went up to his room and hit the books. With great trepidation, His Mom looked at it and to her great surprise, Little Zachary got an 'A' in math. She could no longer hold her curiosity .. She went to his room and said, 'Son, what was it? Was it the nuns?' Little Zachary looked at her and shook his head, no.. 'Well, then, ' she replied, Was it the books, the discipline, the structure, the uniforms? WHAT WAS IT?' Little Zachary looked at her and said, 'Well, on the first day of school when I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign, I knew they weren't fooling around.'
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Harry Reid’s Corrupt Christmas Present by Newt Gingrich
The Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate reportedly are planning on finalizing their differing health care "reform" bills in secret. That's right. They're kicking out the C-SPAN cameras and planning on huddling behind closed doors with a few Obama Administration power brokers to transform the American health care system.
Not that anyone should be surprised by this, of course. "Secret" and "corrupt" are the two words that best describe the process by which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid produced his trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system.
A First Look At Harry Reid's Corrupt Christmas Present
The American people didn't have much of a chance to get a good look at Senator Reid's corrupt Christmas present before it was passed. The legislation would dramatically expand the power and scope of the federal government – and fail to fix any of the problems we face.
That continues the course of action that Democrats have taken this entire year on health reform. Every bill that has been introduced, from the House Tri-Committee bill this summer to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to Harry Reid's latest bill, the recipe is the same: More regulation, higher taxes, bigger gov., less control for you. Here are just a few of the Reid bill's details:
2,409 pages (by comparison, the legislation that created Social Security was just 82 pages long)
$518 billion in tax increases (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office)
$466 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (CBO)
Many costs of the legislation won't begin until 2014, but taxes will be imposed immediately (CBO)
Federal outlays for health care would increase by about $200 billion between 2010-2019 (CBO)
$26 billion of unfunded mandates to states over the next 10 years that will likely result in higher taxes (CBO)
Would increase non-group premiums by $300 per individual and $2,100 per family (CBO)
Up to 10 million people will lose their current health insurance coverage under the bill (CBO)
Adds a 10% tax on indoor tanning services (Section 10907)
No Christmas Miracle, Just a Lot of Washington Payoffs
As I mentioned before, Harry Reid didn't need a Christmas miracle to pass this massive bill. Instead he used an approach more appropriate for The Sopranos than for the nation's capital: payoffs. There may not have been any smoke-filled rooms, but there were plenty of shady deals.
The most egregious were those for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the final holdout. Without his support, the bill would have been stopped. But Ben buckled under the pressure. He was particularly pliable on his demands that no federal funding go to cover abortions. Instead he accepted a watered down compromise that allows individual states to prohibit plans that cover abortion services—a compromise that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and numerous pro-life groups denounced as paving the way for federally funded abortions.
The Nebraska Exemption to Higher Medicaid Costs
But when Harry Reid needed his vote, Sen. Nelson took the money and ran -- $100 million to be exact. Nebraska will be the only state in the country where the full costs of Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government. Specialty hospitals in Nebraska will be exempted from new regulations. The state's largest insurers will be shielded from new regulations. Here are the details of the Nebraska Exemption: Federal government fully finances Medicaid expansion for two years and then increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter to 100% -- in perpetuity (Section 10201), totaling about $100 million
Reid bill specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year
Carve outs for physician-owned hospitals in Nebraska
Physician self-referral exemptions within Nebraska
Nelson's abortion compromise: a state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange if the state enacts a law to prohibit it
Shields two Nebraska insurers from taxes that other plans will pay: Mutual of Omaha and Blue Cross/Blue Shield (language crafted so it only affects these two in Nebraska)
The Roll Call of Shame: Senator Nelson Wasn't the Only Senator Bought Off
But Sen. Nelson wasn't the only senator to be bought off by Majority Leader Reid. More than a dozen other states received special goodies, including:
Louisiana $300 million in additional Medicaid funding Vermont 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 14.
years for Vermont Medicaid program $600 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
Massachusetts 0.5% FMAP increase for 3 years for their entire program $500 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
Hawaii Restores DSH funding eliminated in the past to expand Medicaid eligibility
Michigan Adjusts payments to hospitals according to local wage levels, which when adjusted aids Michigan Exemption for non-profit insurers in the state from large excise tax
Connecticut $100 million earmark for construction of a University of Connecticut hospital
Montana Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards in or around the geographic area of Libby, Mont., subject to an emergency declaration as of 6/17/09
South Dakota , North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana Adds 1% hospital wage index Adds 1% practice index for physicians to cover geographic cost differences
A Massive Bill, Compiled in Secret and Negotiated Through Corruption, Will Now Be Finalized in Secret
And so it has come to this: A massive bill, compiled in secret, negotiated through corruption, and passed by a party-line vote, will now be finalized in secret. Americans deserved better for Christmas.
Reports are that House and Senate Democrats will go around the normal legislative process of a formal, transparent conference to iron out their differences. But rather than a representative group of lawmakers from each chamber negotiating in good faith in the open, House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid, and White House officials are planning to do the work themselves, locking out the vast majority of lawmakers—from both parties.
If these secret proceedings are not stopped, the American people, through our representatives in Congress, will be presented with a done deal. If 2009 is any guide, the final vote will then be called before many members of Congress or the public has a chance to read, understand, and debate the details of the final bill. And in the end, the American people will be left to speculate as to the corrupt bargains that were required to see this monstrosity through to final passage.
Turn on the C-SPAN cameras
But this does not have to be the outcome. Americans do not want our lawmaking to be done in secret. In 2008, then-candidate Obama condemned "negotiating behind closed doors" and instead called for "bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process."
In this spirit of candidate Obama, C-SPAN Chairman Brian Lamb asked congressional leaders this week to let the American people have a seat at the table where decisions affecting every single American will be made and to allow C-SPAN to cover the health care negotiations among Senate, House, and White House representatives.
President Obama was right in 2008 as a candidate. Brian Lamb is right today. These health care negotiations should be held in the open and C-SPAN should be allowed to provide coverage so that all Americans can see how health legislation will affect their lives.
Open, honest government should be an American birthright. Joining Brian Lamb in requesting our elected leaders to live up to a minimum standard of openness and honesty is one New Year's resolution that every American can agree on. Your friend, Newt Gingrich
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. .......... Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ........... George Bernard Shaw
A Congressman is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. .. G. Gordon Liddy
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The article is from the National Center for Policy Analysis and is entitled “10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care.” http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 This article is from the "Investor's Business Daily." It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65%, England 46%, Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93%, England 15% ,
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90%, England 15%, Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77%, England 40%, Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health": U.S. 12%, England 2%,
Canada 6% 15.
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada . Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
WELL, SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND AND SEE HOW HE LIKES IT! HE HAS HIS OWN TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. MAKE HIM ENJOY WHAT HE WISHES ON US INSTEAD! SO MUCH FOR OUR EMPLOYEES LOYALTY TO THEIR BOSSES. FIRE ALL OF THE TRAITOROUS LIARS AND THIEVES. DEATH TO TYRANTS!!!
(I found this site which bears out these statistics)
-- -- -- - -- -- --
10 SURPRISING THINGS ABOUT AMERICAN HEALTH CARE
No. 649 Tuesday, March 24, 2009 by Scott Atlan
Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor.
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about
their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain. 16.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.
(So why the hell do we need our Government in this??? See what government does??? See spot run. See spot jump. And etc: Your not so stupid editor.)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 2009-11-27, 1:43 a.m. E.S.T..
I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives.. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.
First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head ... Isn't it?!
I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].
After I called your mother or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!
I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]
I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb .. After I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.
Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... But I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime.. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours, Alex
P.S. Remember this motto ... An armed society makes for a more civil society!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Musings on the Terrorist Threat, our ‘Citizen of the World’ President, and Sundries
Posted by Jeff Emanuel Tuesday, January 5th at 12:45PM EST
Please excuse the disorganization — and lack of paragraph format — in this post; it’s just a dump of a few things that have been bouncing around in my head since the Christmas attack (and, in some cases, longer).
For years, Democrats have told us that one of the biggest problems in America is that we’re not taken care of well enough by our government. From government health care, to Social Security, to further reduced minimum ages of mandatory government school attendance, to tighter restrictions on the rights of personal armament and self defense, the left has long sought — and continues to seek — to wrap every American in a governmental security blanket from which there can be no escape.
` Thank goodness there were a few Americans on flight 253 from Amsterdam on Christmas Day who had the wherewithal, the independence, and the assertiveness to take down a wannabe killer instead of simply sitting idly by like lambs awaiting slaughter, unsure of what to do in the face of their government’s failure to prevent them from being put in such an awful situation. (My answer is that there are a few sheepdogs around and although their teeth were taken away they could and would at least gum the wolf to death. Your nutty editor.)
Janet Napolitano’s “The System Worked” comment — which she repeated on multiple Sunday shows following the failed Christmas bombing — has to far surpass President Bush’s infamous “heckuva job, Brownie” as the
17.
most infamous statement of its type by an administration official in recent memory. The fact that Napolitano said that in the first place isn’t actually all that surprising; after all, in a culture of total governmental dependence such as that the Left has been trying for so long to create in America, the only thing that need be offered after such a colossal breakdown is a verbal reassurance that the government actually is responsible for whatever it was that went right on that Christmas Day flight. However, the fact that she kept digging in and repeating the statement despite its obvious absurdity served to us just another example of this administration’s inability to “rethink” its own clearly impotent talking points and counterfactual claims (for other examples, see the repeated health care cost containment claims, or the latest “saved or created” job numbers from the abysmally failed “stimulus” package). (Go on and say it! Socialists are idiots and this admin. Is composed of socialists and they are all necessarily liars. They lie to us, they lie to each other and they lie to themselves. That is the obvious source of their stupidity. This by your right wing potential terrorist editor.)
Napolitano’s “system” comment reflected her dangerously incorrect view of the Department of Homeland Security as being responsible for disaster response only, rather than also having a role in the prevention of both “natural and man-caused” (her terms) disasters. The fact that the rest of us in America disagree has, of course, little or no bearing on Ms. Napolitano’s view of her own organization’s purpose; however, it would be nice to think that all the shoe - taking - off, water - bottle - trashing, liquid/gel/aerosol - separating screening we go through every time we fly anywhere is conducted for a purpose other than providing the TSA with a record of our clothing and possessions that they can use when performing their actual job of cleaning up and identifying bodies after we’re blown up in flight by a terrorist it apparently wasn’t their responsibility to actually stop.
Applying this to government health care — as we should — suggests scenarios I don’t even want to think about, such as a Health Czar going on the Sunday show and bragging about how well the state-run health care “system worked” when it came to beautifying corpses for viewing and interment.
Speaking of the TSA, has there ever been a better example of how reactive a bureaucratic organization can
Speaking of the TSA, has there ever been a better example of how reactive a bureaucratic organization can be? Three years after the sports drink suicide plot was uncovered in Britain, we’re still separating our 3 oz. liquids for screening and throwing away our water bottles before passing from ticketing into the gate area; 8 years after Richard Reid failed to ignite his Doc Martens on AA63, we’re still removing our shoes and shuffling through the X-ray in stockinged feet. The immediate response from Napolitano and TSA to the Christmas attempt — temporarily banning electronics on flights, and restricting passengers to their seats with nothing on their laps for the last hour of inbound international flights — was no less ridiculous. Because one terrorist decided the last hour of the flight was the best time to set his pants on fire, that’s the only portion of any flight that will be at risk in the future? Really?
I think (clearly) conflicted Obama voter Megan McArdle put it best when she said, “The TSA’s obsession with fighting the last war is so strong that I expect any day to see them building wooden forts at our nation’s airports in order to keep the redcoats at bay.”
Speaking of Napolitano: Does anybody else find it interesting that, in the wake of an attempted terrorist attack on a US plane, carrying US citizens, over US soil, which would have worked had the detonator the Nigerian terrorist carried on board along with his security-beating underpants bomb not malfunctioned, the head of Homeland Security’s top priority remains …. unionizing the employees under her aegis? Message to Janet Napolitano: If unionizing TSA employees wouldn’t have prevented the Christmas bombing, you have other priorities to worry about.
Does anybody else find it interesting that President Obama needed nine months to conduct a “review” of a single front in the War on Terror and to decide on a strategy, when he had the best military minds available to him (not
to mention a full top-to-bottom review handed to him by the outgoing Bush Administration in December 2008), but that he only needed a week to conduct a “top-to-bottom review of security” at 19,500 US airports, and to decide on a new airport security policy?
Those new security procedures are only slightly less ridiculous than their still-active predecessors. Yes, people flying from 14 countries in the Middle East and Africa (as well as Cuba, which could provoke an interesting reaction from the Castrati on the Left) will receive additional security screening; however, travelers everywhere who are headed to the US will also now be subject to “tightened random screening.” This means your 87-year-old grand mother, your five-year-old son, and millions of other people who do not fit the well-defined profile of an international terrorist will still be subject to random searches. This policy is in place, of course, because the worst thing the TSA could do would be to limit their searches to those who are actually threats to blow up the planes they are attempting to board. Does anybody else think President Obama’s first reaction to the news of an attempted bombing on Christmas Day was to wonder who he missed on his international bowing tour?
Yemen is one of the 14 countries on the Obama Watch List, meaning that people flying from Yemen to the US will be subject to extensive security screening. Given the fact that the president is determined to give back Yemeni terrorists currently residing at Gitmo at the same time he is calling for additional screening of people flying back from that nation, would it be safe to say that Mr. Obama’s prime concern isn’t that those terrorists he is releasing not murder innocent people, but that they not do so on (or over) American soil? Doing so, of course, simply consigns more Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere — who already make up ” well over 50 percent of the victims” of terrorism, according to the NCTC — to grisly deaths at the hands of these dangerous extremists?
18.
Speaking of Muslim victims of terror and the NCTC report, the vast majority of victims of terrorism in 2008 were Muslims living “in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.” Does it strike anybody else that these are precisely the countries that the Michael Moores, Sean Penns, and Patty Murrays of the American Left have been telling us for years are supportive of bin Laden and other terrorists because they see them as “freedom fighters,” rather than as terrorist killers? The tens of thousands of Muslims killed in those countries by terrorists committing mass murder in the name of Allah might disagree with such an assertion, were they able to speak for themselves from beyond the grave.
It’s just too bad our “Citizen of the World” president isn’t all that interested in protecting all innocent human life, be it Middle Eastern or Western. Does anybody else find it interesting that President Obama, who is so fond of demanding that everybody else “rethink” their assumptions, values, and conclusions (and who “today will press intelligence community to constantly challenge its assumptions”), never seems willing to “rethink” any of his own positions, beliefs, or policy prescriptions?
-- -- -- - -- -- --
Hey Jeff! You just don’t get it do you? He is LORD nobamma! He can do no wrong. He knows all and all he knows is what he knows and no-one has the right to question him. Bow down to Lord nobamma for he is your Lord and master. Fear Lord nobamma for he will have the power of life and death over all those who disagree with him or might disagree with him. As for his angels who surround him, they can do no wrong also because their Lord and master has selected them for their massive and righteous wisdom and they are one with him until one of them wises up and gets himself killed or thrown into the lake of fire to burn until his stupidity is vanquished. Whew! Maybe your nutty editor has gone off the deep end. SOB!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. .......... James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. ... Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The UN IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AMERICA!
Written by J. D. Longstreet Friday, 15 January 2010 06:45
Obama Leads The UN Gungrabber Pack! Back in October of 2009, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, publicly announced that the US WOULD support UN negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking. The Bush administration, you may remember, and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, opposed negotiations of this treaty for years.
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has said: "Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms. The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."
The US then joined a vote, which was almost unanimous; to adopt a resolution, which would set a schedule, a timetable, on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. Within that resolution was a proposal to finalize the accord in the year 2012.
Gun Owners in the US are gravely concerned over this move by the UN - and -- more importantly, by the Obama Regime, to support it. To many gun enthusiasts it is a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to "Global Governance" -- and there is a growing belief that it is an attempt by the Obama Regime to create private gun control laws it knows it cannot get through the US Congress. It doesn't take any imagination, at all, to quickly under-stand that this treaty would effectively cancel rights granted US citizens by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Our right to "keep and bear arms" would no longer exist.
US gun rights supporters are up in arms - and with good reason. John Bolton, former Permanent U.S. Rep-resentative to the United Nations, fought the proposed treaty for quite a while. He has seen it up close and personally. Bolton, in remarks he made recently to Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Associations' NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, said the following: "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt - as was the case back over a decade ago - that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
Bolton continued: "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."
Bolton went on to say: "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he said. "The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."
19.
It turns out there are some seven countries pushing the UN Arms Treaty, Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya. Interestingly, Great Britain has had a virtual explosion of violent crime since they all but banned guns back in 1997. Just a few months ago, the British press reported that England and Wales now have the highest violent crime in the European Union - a rate which, in fact, exceeds that of the United States and even hyper-violent South Africa. Mailonline reported: "In the decade following (the election of the Labor Party) in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million - more than two every minute."
It seems that Great Britain, with their near ban of gun ownership by private citizens, has a violent crime victimization rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents. While here, in the, oh, so violent, USA, with our far less restrictive gun laws, we have a violence rate of only 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Even South Africa's rate is lower, at 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000.
In the land "down under," Australia, the Aussies are suffering an escalation in violent crimes as well. The Australia Institute of Criminology reports that assault alone occurs at a rate of 840 per 100,000 - a rate that increased dramatically since the Port Arthur ban. You might find it interesting what the Aussies have to put up with now that firearms are nearly banned in their fair land. It is, indeed, a warning for their cousins, the Americans. "The Manly Daily" reported, back in October of 2009, that pursuant to the Australian Firearms Act of 1996: "Northern Beaches Police will be turning up on the doorstep of every licensed gun owner in the area over the next four years to check their firearms are stored correctly. Operation Aston follows the gun amnesty that ended on May 31 and will target guns stored incorrectly and the security of gun safes, Northern Beaches Commander Doreen Cruickshank said. "Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their weapon is safely stored at all times when not in use," Supt Cruickshank said.
"Licensing police will be attending the home of every licensed firearm owner in the northern beaches over the next four years to inspect every weapon and check the gun safe. "Officers will be examining all gun safes to ensure they comply with the legislative requirements, particularly in relation to the standard and security of safes." Supt Cruickshank reminded all legitimate owners that under the Firearms Act they must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safekeeping of their firearms. "It's especially important that weapons are stored in such a way as to limit the possibility of loss or theft, so they don't come into the possession of a person who isn't authorized to hold them," she said. The maximum penalty for incorrect storage of a weapon is two years in jail.
You might be interested to know this, as well: In Australia, for every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit for each person has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is issued. In some states, such as Queensland, this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class, whilst in others, it is not. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license.
THIS is where America is headed if the "gun grabbers" get their "reasonable gun control" laws. They know they cannot get those laws passed through Congress TODAY -- but they have an excellent chance to get them through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First".
He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.
Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’. This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics. However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2. (sure, they want the money we will be forced to give them if the UN succeeds in getting what nobamma wants. Your crazy editor) 20.
An image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday shows the extent of the freezing weather. Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained In a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’. Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September. Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. ‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’
As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance. Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.
The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view. On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south. Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years. As a result, the jet stream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.
A composite photograph released last year to highlight the issue of melting ice and global warming However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).
For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming. But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDO’s move together in a synchronized way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles. 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries. 'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’
Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.
Pictures of the snow in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, last week show the city is the coldest it has been since ‘70
But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise. Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago. For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast dis-appearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’. It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer. 'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’
As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted. Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole. In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow. ‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’
He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing. For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’ Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’ Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.
'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'
But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea
21.
levels will rise by a given amount. 'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’. He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’ He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.
The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much? Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif sug-gested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.
Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater. William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some back-ground rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.
Dr David Viner stands by his claim that snow will become an 'increasingly rare event' According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’
But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact. In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’. Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything. 'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’ The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Safer Streets 2010: Why the second amendment in a 2010 liberty platform?
By John Longenecker Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The success of the plan to retake Congress, America’s states and our major cities will rest on two important things; does the crop of candidates read the American people right? Do the candidates understand what we want in freedom, sovereignty and independence from our very own public servants, and; are those candidates of the mettle to bring personal and professional integrity to office in order to succeed?
Will they last without some stupid scandal surfacing? Will they keep their word and be a no-compromise servant? Will they insist on eliminating the double-standard for the good of the country?
The Congress that takes America back from the left might very well be made up of Libertarians, Independents and Conservatives. Now, that could really work.
The biggest issue is that the series of impositions on the nation – the bailouts, the backroom deals, environmental laws, taxation, shortages, energy, fairness doctrine, health care reform and all the rest — are confiscating our money and coercing our dependency on the servants to the exclusion of all alternatives. Soon, choice will be a crime. Independence will be history, as we are being looted and blocked in the process.
The only way candidates will really unseat the current crop of Congress Critters is to understand what is irking the electorate and to boldly state the only solution: “Elect me, and we will undo everything the left has done.” Tough job to say the least, but there’s one big Want Ad for it, and numerous opening available, with benefits.
How does the second amendment fit into this? Because it is a matter of first things first. You take the weeds out at the roots. The second amendment is critical to the candidates who want to show how they understand the minds of constituents in independence. Without addressing gun control, they won’t reach the people, nor will they be able to tackle the root of the looting of the nation.
Why is that, John? Because something has changed since 2008. The very best platform will respond to the needs of this country by articulating that the country has gone way too far left beyond the consent of the people, and that Americans resent being so disgracefully dependent on our public servants. Sounds simple enough, but this coerced dependency loots the country. What the candidates could articulate in how they will be different from current critters is in one thing: understanding that being independent of our public servants is a matter of citizen authority as the sovereign. It is a matter of personal dignity, and that dependency robs every single person of that personal dignity, their sovereign authority under our system, their ability to hand down a legacy to their kids, to make a difference in the lives of others, and to have a sense of purpose in a nation made for these. It is also a matter of law.
It is this mind-set and set of values of Independence that would make someone working without a net to be a gun owner. The kind of person who knows he or she is on their own will understand their own authority and will likely elect to be armed. It’s like having more than one fire extinguisher in the home. You’re on your own during the most critical moments of the emergency, and understanding that there is a lot you can do can be life-saving. It is this way of life of keeping yourself as part of the equation which is being ‘Transformed”. Can 2010 reverse this?
22.
The kind of candidate who believes so much in independence from our public servants will know that the adults who like being adults and not being teenagers will know not only that they work without a net, but that they prefer it. As such, they resist being forced against their will to depend on public servants and to their detriment at times. Gun control is the very first beach head. Gun control has never taken the place of the armed citizen in stopping violence, stopping crime, saving lives or saving money; it just says it does. In insists. It grows the crisis in order to usher in more boondoggles which purport to manage further crises. It is the equivalent of refusing citizen CPR: “Don’t learn CPR, just call us!”
The armed citizen or average gun owner has saved more lives and de-escalated more violence than any gun control ever has or ever will
The armed citizen or average gun owner has saved more lives and de-escalated more violence than any gun control ever has or ever will. Gun control is not where crime is fought: it is where crime begins after the broken homes, the hate propaganda and the silly tolerance has planted the seeds. Gun control cultivates these like an adored houseplant. It is where the broken homes act out unchecked and are used for political purposes. Gun control has snuffed out lives this way.
To most of these adult voters, the current idea that we need to give up some of our liberties for safety is decerebrate. These people prove every day that depending on themselves is superior to anything the servants can second-guess, and, fortunately, these people are now in the majority. They identify themselves as Libertarian, Conservative, and Independent. The liberals hover around 27% by some polls. Part of the problem with the free has been a marked patience and tolerance for silly promises which go against our better judgment, and to our regret. That time could happily be over in November, 2010.
If there was ever a mandate, this is it. Just pile gun laws in the ash heap of history right along with political correctness and the rest will take care of itself. It is one of the best kept dirty little secrets in America. Reversing it ought to be the core of the liberty platform for 2010.
You will know the better candidates by how they believe in the second amendment and how they explain their understanding of it on the stump. No, it’s not for hunting, and it’s not always about obtaining food: it isn’t even all about self-defense; it is purely about how we know supremely that government can never take your place on so many issues beginning with immediate violence, and how it is a boondoggle even to try, much less insist. It is important to obtain from these candidates the promise to repeal gun laws first as part of their overall comprehension of the armed citizen - independence from public servants for a reversal of this soft tyranny all of America is experiencing.
You see, fighting crime is done at only one location: the scene of the crime. Interdiction, forensics, law enforcement, detection and detention, and the administration of justice are not where crime is fought, only where crime may be caught. It is so because it was not stopped, but somehow in every case completed its criminal acts.
The armed citizen stops more violence that the absentee policies of gun control
Turning crime around is, itself, not done at gunpoint, but politically at counterpoint. The key, as you can see, is not political persuasion by force, but persuasion by the preponderance of evidence, citizen authority, and by credibility. The armed citizen stops more violence that the absentee policies of gun control. Compared to the proven successes of the armed citizen, gun control has no credibility in first disarming people, and it has no preponderance of evidence in what makes safer streets, really. So, when crime predictably grows, the practice of pointing to the need to protect people looks rather silly, since disarmament made then unsafer to begin with. Hence, government uses force against the sovereign. It then paves the way to further boondoggles based on hate, violence, bigotry or greed.
The boast of big government is purely in the practice of removing such safeguards first, then preying on taxpayers in the void it has created. It then becomes a bolder and even bolder looting of the nation. The armed citizen has the greater credibility. Because the second amendment can de-escalate crime rather well, it is a safeguard put in place to discredit boondoggles of bigger and bigger programs which employ this formulaic governance. This is what the Founders knew so well: when you disarm a nation, you can sell them anything. When the nation is armed, stupid policies are not so likely to make sense.
Simple, isn’t it?
In 2010, you cannot seriously promise a reduction in the size of government without a repeal of a good chunk of American Gun Laws first. And you stand better chances of getting elected if you enunciate that you will repeal American Gun Laws as your first step in reducing bigger government. If you understand it, you can say it, and if you say it, you can likely get elected.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
NOW THIS GUY MAKES SENSE ! This is the second article I have come across that makes sense. Unfortunately that was long before the Rag happened and I have not been able so far to retrieve it. I will continue to look for it. It was about how our government really works. It explains what has caused us to lose control of our government and a solution to correcting it. I have included some of it from memory in the past issues. But this guy says it so much better than I am able. This from your inarticulate but handsome editor.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. ........ Mark Twain (1866)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
23.
Napolitano “Shocked” by Al Qaeda’s Determination
2010 January 8 by Michael van der Galien
Question: What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well. SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence. It really emphasizes now the renewed importance on how different intelligence is integrated and analyzed, and threat streams are followed through. And, again, it will impact how we continue to review the need to improve airport security around the world.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Pollyanna MSM Quick to Defend Obama and Napolitano
2010 January 1 by Michael van der Galien
Although I should’ve expected it, I’m afraid I have to admit that the mainstream media’s passionate defense of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano took me by surprise. I especially expected better from New York Times columnist David Brooks – as much of a centrist as they come – and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder. The former wrote yesterday:
There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems.
Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.
“Contemptuous and hysterical?” Pardon me? Whether Brooks likes it or not, Napolitano is in charge of homeland security. If the intelligence community makes a mistake which (almost) results in a terrorist attack, she and no one else is responsible. It’s a vital part of the West’s democratic system: democracies can’t expect to thrive if government officials aren’t held accountable for everything that happens under their watch.
Brooks’ column may be bad enough, but Broder proves it can always be worse. The man who is considered to be the “Dean” of the Washington press corps doesn’t merely defend Napolitano in his latest column, as Broder does, but even has the audacity to praise her: It came as no surprise to anyone who knows her that Napolitano handled the incident and its aftermath with aplomb. In the years I have known her, she has managed every challenge that has come her way with the same calm command that she showed in this instance. If there is anyone in the administration who embodies President Obama’s preference for quiet competence with “no drama,” it is Janet Napolitano.
If that quote isn’t definite proof that politicians aren’t the only ones in Washington who are out of touch with the rest of the country (and reality), I don’t know what is. Brooks and Broder: the MSM’s Pollyanna-twins.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
*Someone* Is Lying To Us About Terrorists
2010 January 8 by Michael van der Galien
CBS News is reporting that the White House claims there was “No Xmas Day In-Flight Warning” and, further, that they refute the claims of an LA Times piece that suggested “border enforcement officials found information in a database suggesting the alleged terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had extremist ties.” The Times piece, allegedly, goes on to suggest this:
“The people in Detroit were prepared to look at him in secondary inspection,” a senior law enforcement official told the Times. “The decision had been made. The [database] had picked up the State Department concern about this guy – that this guy may have been involved with extremist elements in Yemen.”
I say allegedly because the link appears to be “broken” now (page not found), and I can’t verify the read for myself. Couple this with the Detroit Free Press’ article that suggests (via the mysteriously missing LA Times piece)…
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama: “The buck stops with me”
2010 January 8 by Michael van der Galien
John Ziegler says in an e-mail that Barack Obama sounded a lot more like Dick Cheney than himself in this crisp and broad statement. This was an all-business, no-nonsense rundown that gave a solid impression of action, as opposed to the low-key approach to the terrorist attack attempt over the last two weeks. Obama dispenses with the “system worked” excuse to emphasize the obvious, which is that having to have airline passengers dive onto Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to keep him from detonating a bomb on the plane is a failure. And that failure, Obama said, is one for which the man in charge has to accept responsibility. This is longish, but the statement begins at about the 1:40 mark:
“I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately, the buck stops with me. … When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”
(You bet it is! There is much more that you are responsible for -------Like the lies_ ED.) 24.
Hutchison Fails As Health Care Passes Senate URLhttp://www.washingtonkay.com/blog/blame-senator hutchison?gclid=CLC3seq0r58CFRRlswodHifI1Q
Submitted by http://watchingkay.com on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 10:34
Senator said she was staying in the Senate to fight, but she accelerated bill’s passage: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison promised Texans that she would fight Obamacare, but her efforts instead led to the Senate passing the bill today. Last week, Sen. Hutchison voted with all 60 Democrats to end a Republican filibuster designed to delay the health care bill.
" ‘Twas the night before Christmas,
when all through the house,
not a creature was stirring,
not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
in hopes that Obamacare would not soon be there.
However, because Senator Hutchison voted the wrong way,
government health care is now on its way,”
said Texans for Rick Perry spokesman Mark Miner.
Since voting to end the Republican filibuster, Sen. Hutchison has used our troops as a prop to deflect criticism of her support for a procedural measure that did not provide one dollar in defense funding and attempted to deceive the American public by falsely saying, “By the time I got to the floor, they had the 60 votes,” despite C-SPAN footage clearly showing otherwise. Her vote also led to protests at her offices in Dallas, Houston and Austin.
(SOURCES: Roll Call Vote #381;
“Statement on Senator Hutchison’s Vote to Support American Troops,” http://hutchison.senate.gov . 12/18/09; 2:32 mark of interview with Fox News available online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYMqE_IZMdk ;
C-SPAN footage available online at http://www.WashingtonKay.com ;
“Tea Party groups protest Hutchison's moves on health care bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/22/09) Earlier this week, the Dallas Morning News published an article about Sen. Hutchison’s “powerless” role in the health care debate with the headline, “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill.” The article said, “Now that she has stayed in Washington expressly to battle the Democratic plan, she might come off as ineffectual if it passes.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/21/09) Sen. Hutchison made numerous promises over the past several months regarding the health care bill, including: She said she would “fight with every bone in my body against a government takeover of health care.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison unsure on timing of Senate resignation,” POLITICO, 10/13/09) She said, “I can assure you that my fellow Republicans and I will use every option provided to us in the Senate to filibuster this legislation.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison vows to fight health reform,” Corpus Christ Caller-Times, 11/10/09) She said, “In the Senate, I will be more than simply a no vote. I will use every tool at my disposal, call in every favor, twist every arm to defeat the Obama health care.”
(SOURCE: “Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison won't leave seat for Texas governor's race until after March primaries,” Dallas Morning News, 11/14/09) She said her ability to “talk and educate people” would “hopefully have an impact on wavering Democrats.”
(SOURCE: “Inside Texas Politics,” WFAA-TV, 11/29/09) Despite her empty rhetoric, as the Dallas Morning News reported this week, “Advocacy isn't the same as achievement.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/21/09)
Senator Hutchison misleads Texans on her bad vote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVcoFq170SA&feature=related
You Never Know What Kay WillSay:1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSy1UaDyuag&feature=channel
You Never Know What Kay Will Say: 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8XIswJtfw8
Then just follow the trail
-- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
25.
Obama’s Unicorn of Hope and Change Died Under the Weight of Ted Kennedy’s Ego
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile) Tuesday, January 19th at 11:15PM EST
In Massachusetts, Barack Obama’s unicorn of hope and changed died under the weight of Ted Kennedy’s ego. The left gets angry when it is pointed out, but it is an objective fact. Once Kennedy’s condition became terminal, he could have resigned his seat in favor of an appointment or special election. Instead, the Democrats and Kennedy decided he should martyr himself to advance socialized medicine in America. Had he resigned before the health care debate began, the Republican victory in Massachusetts would be a myth. Instead, it is now a reality. Yes, you can credit Ted Kennedy with killing health care, not just Mary Jo Kopechne. ObamaCare was on life support. Scott Brown just removed its feeding tube thanks to Ted Kennedy.
There are eleven other things to take away from Scott Brown’s victory: 1. Someone needs to ask Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, and the Democrats how the teabags taste. 2. Scott Brown should give the Republican response to Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech next week. From his truck. 3. Centrist Democrats are running away from health care deform as fast as possible now. As Evan Bayh (D-IN) said, if Massachusetts is not a wake up call, there is no waking up for the Democrats. 4. The GOP has as much to worry about from Scott Brown’s victory as the Democrats do. Consider this: Brown ran against the DC Republican establishment as much as the Democrat establishment. When the DC Republicans put in their $500,000.00 after the tea party had already raised Brown millions, they did so quietly and under the radar. Contrast that with Jim DeMint, who publicly endorsed Brown and used the Senate Conservatives Fund as a vessel to rally conservative activists for Scott Brown very publicly. 5. Jim DeMint said health care was Barack Obama’s Waterloo. Yup. And the people of Massachusetts delivered the decisive blow. Today we may have to start calling DeMint “Wellington.” He, not the GOP, has beaten Obama like a drum on health care. 6. Like it or not — Mitt Romney: Winner. But the health care issue in Massachusetts could be a serious vulnerability for him in light of the voters of Massachusetts who have the Democrats’ universal health care dream have voted for the candidate opposed to expanding that “dream” to the nation. 7. There are a number of liberal Democrats tonight who are thinking the following: force health care through, take the hit in November, then expect every election from here on out to be about problems with health care — the Democrats will, in every case, be able and willing to outbid the GOP thereby creating a permanent Democratic majority. They will try it if they can. The GOP must not get overconfident of a health care deform defeat. 8. Little noticed bit of Scott Brown trivia: he polled better on the issue of “enemy combatants” than on health care. Voters really do not trust the Democrats on national security and it is growing in the conscience of voters as a very real issue. 9. How many people will die because Barack Obama’s White House is incompetent? This is not hyperbole. No competent White House would spend political capital on a trip to Europe to sell the Olympics without a guarantee it would happen. No competent White House would spend political capital two days before an election viewed as a referendum on the President of the United States with the President’s candidate’s poll numbers cratering. If the White House is not competent in spending the President’s political capital, how the heck can it be competent to save American lives? 10.The Left tells us the nation is now ungovernable. Actually, the allegedly ungovernable citizenry just told those attempting to govern to go to hell. 11. In 2008, Independent voters voted for Obama to prove they were not the racist bigots the media and Democrats hypothesized they were. Ever since, Independents have been voting against Obama to prove they also are not socialists.
BONUS NUMBER 12: A year ago today, Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. Today, he wakes up rejected by the independents who elected him and a social pariah within the Democrat Party. Outside of the Congressional Black Caucus and a handful of far left seats in Congress, it is hard, this morning, to imagine any Democrat wanting Barack Obama to go out on the campaign trail. Every statewide candidate for whom Obama has campaigned since his election has lost.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Posted by Moe Lane Tuesday, January 19th at 9:28PM EST
This message goes out to every vulnerable Democratic Congressman representing a Republican or even centrist district - and after tonight, who among you is not vulnerable? It is a simple message: we can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way. The easy way is, you suddenly decide that you have a burning desire to spend more time with your families. So you don’t run for re-election, you walk off stage technically undefeated, and you go join a lobbying firm. The hard way is, you do run for re-election, and we pry you out of your seats. We want to do this the hard way. We will enjoy doing it.
That’s your only warning. And remember: nobody is going to be able to save you. If the President, the DSCC, the DCCC, the DNC, the SEIU, ACORN, and the netroots couldn’t manage a win in Massachusetts… what do you think that they can do for you? Moe Lane
PS: To our readers… Go have a drink. Go have a few. Celebrate. Tomorrow, we talk about how we’re going to take FL-19 and HI-01 away from the Democratic party. PPS: More than a few people wanted me to mock specific members of the netroots in this post - but when I’m on my way to the main hall to deliver a message I see no reason why I should stop at the kennels along the way.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Ya got six more pages this month. But to me it is worth it. Hopefully nobamma & co. is history. 26

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges the trouble starts.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6%-------Australia -- Muslim 1.5%-------Canada -- Muslim 1.9%-------China -- Muslim 1.8%-------Italy -- Muslim 1.5%-------Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2%-------Germany -- Muslim 3.7%-------United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%-------Spain -- Muslim 4%-------Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food prep-aration jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8%-------Philippines -- 5%-------Sweden -- Muslim 5%-------Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%-------The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%-------Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana -- Muslim 10%-------India -- Muslim 13.4%-------
Israel -- Muslim 16%-------Kenya -- Muslim 10%-------Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40%-------Chad -- Muslim 53.1%-------Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70%-----Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%-----Sudan -- Muslim 70%-------Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some geno-cide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%-------Egypt -- Muslim 90%-------Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%------Iran -- Muslim 98%-------Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%-------Iraq -- Muslim 97%-------Jordan -- Muslim 92%-------Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%-------Pakistan -- Muslim 97%-------Palestine -- Muslim 99%-------Syria -- Muslim 90%-------Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%-------Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%-------United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%-------Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%-------Somalia -- Muslim 100%-------Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. There-fore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.. But their birth rates dwarf
27.
the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's popu-lation by the end of this century.
This is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Now ponder the following: Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...?
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this begin to explain why the Nigerian would-be suicide bomber on the watch list almost brought the plane down last Christmas?
Please forward this important information.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Note: I have and have read Leon Uris’s book ‘The HAJ’. It shows the way of thinking of the Arabs. Shore don’t need this. I have checked out about 1/3 of the stuff here. It checks out absolutely. We are in deep doo-doo folks. As I have said many times, Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Its main goal and purpose is world domination no more no less Editor. The whole Koran was started by a highway robber Baron who conveniently had visions from Allah when he needed something to keep his army of followers in line. Allah is a false God like Baal and Buda and others. Editor.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The following story I will not vouch for as a true account. There are portions of it that do not jibe in my mind. However I will vouch for the fact that it is historically true. I lived through this time and read the stories as they were written. I have heard other stories that fit this one like a glove.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!
1938 Austria --Land of "The Sound of Music" Story
Friends, I had the opportunity to hear Kitty Werthmann speak at the Eagle Forum national conference a couple of months back. She told a powerful story about what it was like growing up under Hitler.
America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away
By: Kitty Werthmann
What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or will ever read in history books.
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any American publications.. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.
In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates. Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.
The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.
We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.
We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.
Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his
28.
family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.
Hitler Targets Education – Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:
Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang “Deutsch land, Deutsch land, Uber Alles,” and had physical education.
Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.
My mother was very unhappy.. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
Equal Rights Hits Home:
In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.
Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized med-icine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
As for health care, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing..
We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
“Mercy Killing” Redefined: 29.
In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.
The Final Steps - Gun Laws:
Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom. No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn’t destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn’t, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.
“It’s true….those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away "After America , There is No Place to Go" Please forward this message to others who may not have read it.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
A few old but worthwhile quotes.
1. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself ............ Mark Twain
2. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. .......... Winston Churchill
3. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ........... George Bernard Shaw
4. A Congressman is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. .. G. Gordon Liddy
5. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. .......... James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. ... Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton
7. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys ............. PJ. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ........ . Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ...... Ronald Reagan (1986)
10. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. ............ Will Rogers
11. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. ....... P. J. O'Rourke
12. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. ........ Voltaire (1764)
13. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. . Pericles (430 B. C.)
14. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. ........ Mark Twain (1866)
15. Talk is cheap except when Congress does it. . Unknown. 30.